Random thoughts and musings from a young Catholic Evangelical. Mostly on religion and global politics and culture, with occasional forays into literature and the existential plight of my self and other selves in the modern world.

Wednesday, 10 June 2009

Defending the Papal States- Good Idea or Not?

There is this week in the Catholic Herald a review of what looks like a very interesting book. I am half-tempted to procure myself a copy, and add it to the masses of other books that I really ought to read. It is called The Pope's Legion and is about the international army that was assembled to defend the Papal States during the unification of Italy in the 1860's.

It looks like a rousing read but I must confess to mixed feelings about their cause. Of course, I understand why the Papal States existed (the same reason Vatican State exists today) and I strongly sympathise with King Pepin in donating this land to the Pope in the eighth century so whoever the political leaders happened to be at any one time would not be able to try to control the Pope or influence papal elections. It was a strictly pious act and a noble and selfless one (it was his own land that Pepin donated, after all, albeit newly won). But the Pope being a political leader as well as a pastor always seems to me to have led to far more trouble than it was worth, and to have exposed the Pope to a set of temptations to which he should never have been exposed. Witness, for example, the Pope declaring war on Charles V during the Reformation. Madness!

So I, for one, am deeply thankful to God that the Papal States are no more, and that, though the Pope is still politically independent, the miniscule Vatican State can hardly tempt the Pope with political ambitions like the vast tracts of land that made up the Papal States once could. That is a chapter (or set of chapters) in the Church's history I am glad to have seen close. Now the Pope can actually do his job as universal pastor and Steward of the Kingdom instead of playing political games.

So I am not entirely sympathetic with the subjects of the book or, at any rate, I'm not sure I agree with them that it was a cause worth fighting and dying for. That may or may not be affected by my ignorance of many of the circumstances surrounding the fight. Though I have a passing acquaintance with it from high school history lessons, I have never done any in-depth study of the period of Italian unification or of what sort of man Garibaldi was, or Victor Emmanuel. If I knew more about it and them, maybe I would decide to throw in my lot with the Zouaves. But from where I sit now, especially seeing the consequences of it all well after the fact, I must confess scepticism. And at the very least, even if the unification of Italy was not in the final analysis a good thing (and in my present state of incomplete knowledge I happen to think it was), the Treaty of the Lateran in 1929 certainly was for the best.

All of which is to say I look forward to buying and reading this book when I get the chance.

12 comments:

Actually, someone like Newman agreed with you. On the other hand, I think with the benefit of hindsight, that Newman was wrong to do so. Things are easily misrepresented, but I think that the Vatican had at least as much of right on its side as the Italian states. The unification of Italy was a power grab. Apart from this, that, and the creation of Germany, are the beginnings of the kinds of war we are plagued by today: based on the idea that nations are essentially tribal groups, and that each tribal group deserves a nation to itself. As for the Popes as Italian princes, that was also an accident of the times. We can sit and pontificate all we like, but that was the way kingdoms were ruled in those days. In the first instance, papal political power provided a bulwark against aggression. Secondly, it was the last refuge of outcast groups (the Jews for instance). Compared to the papal states, the rest of Europe was sunk in barbarism.

At the end of the day, also, it is a little bit cheap (sorry!) for us to pass judgement on the papal states, so long afterwards. It is a little bit like people condemning the crusaders, in ignorance of their particular causes and problems.

Madness? Quite. But I turn around and see this big push by the right wing Christians to make their own influence on politics, especially in the USA, and when they don't get their way, in some cases, degrade into extremism. How is this any better?

Extremism is a word without content. Give me an example of what you are talking about.

Several aspects of American Christianity inspire an almost allergic reaction in me, and those who oppose these would describe them as extremism eg. the dedication of many to the Republican Party. Other aspects I support wholeheartedly, eg. pre-life lobbying, and these also would be described as extremism by those who oppose them.

Christianity is a public faith. It purports to be based on historical events which are verifiable by ordinary historical means; it says things about metaphysics, human nature, etc. which are either objectively true or objectively false, and will in either case have consequences for people's actions. This being the case, its adherents will naturally have definite opinions about how human beings ought to be governed and about the application of political power. Much like everyone else, really.

When it comes to clergy doing this, apart from the principles underpinning their actions (which I would argue for or against according to the issue), I am concerned that they involve themselves in politics AS CLERGY, not as politicians. This was the problem with the Papal States, as I see it. I think something like John Chrysostom criticising Empress Theodora from the pulpit was absolutely proper. Ambrose denying Theodosius Communion was absolutely just. Thomas Becket squaring off against Henry II was right and good. Clement VII declaring war on Charles V and sending armies against him like any other potentate simply because it was politically convenient is emphatically not. The clergy have a moral authority, an apostolic authority. It is their right and duty to wield that authority and not some other, for the good of souls and not for political gain.

That's clergy. Of course lay people can (and should in a democracy) be involved in politics, as politicians or simply as citizens. The ideal of a Christian king is a noble ideal. Even the concept of Holy Roman Emperor, temporal leader of Christendom, was a pretty good idea as far as it went, even if it didn't work out so well in every case. But kings and emperors (and presidents and prime ministers) are different from popes and bishops. These are qualitatively different things. One man should not be (or aspire to be) both.

So, in answer to your question, is it any better? Objectively, yes. Without examples of particular cases of "extremism", I couldn't say whether I'd agree with what you had in mind when you asked. But, even if I did disagree with it, objectively, at least people understand their roles better. I see pro-Iraq war priests and ministers (and probably anti-Iraq war ones as well, but that's not the point) going to Iraq as chaplains. I am against the Iraq war. But I am glad that they are going as chaplains rather than fighting in units or leading as generals. I recall that Billy Graham was very close with successive American presidents. But he was always a preacher first. He did evangelistic Crusades, not military Crusades (or, for that matter, political pep-rallies). I think this was as it should be, even if I would have refused to support some of the presidents he supported.

Christians don't have Caliphs. There is nothing wrong with Christians in general being involved in politics, as though one could compartmentalise a whole worldview. One may argue for or against particular instances of political involvement of course, but in principle it is no bad thing. But political office and the ecclesiastical heirarchy should remain separate in order to maintain the integrity of each.

It is only cheap to pass judgement if the principles on which we pass judgement are culturally dependent. If they are objective moral norms, or arise from the nature of the thing in question and not merely from cultural accidents or the surrounding circumstances, then I think we can certainly pass judgement. I happen to think my scepticism regarding the Papal States derives from the intrinsic nature of the papacy. I also think that a decent defense can be mounted for the Crusades based on things like Just War theory, among other things. Feel free to counter either of those propositions- I sense a lively discussion coming on :).

I haven't seen 'Jesus Camp', although I have heard of it. Is it worth seeing? Maybe I should see it.

A couple of things. Obviously I don't support abortion doctors getting shot. I was grieved when I read about George Tiller. I was also gratified (and, to be perfectly honest, relieved) to see all the major pro-life organisations denouncing the act almost as soon as it happened. The man who did that not only committed murder but, by doing so, violated his own principles. You cannot do evil that good may come of it. That is a moral norm that NEVER changes, no matter the circumstances (I can't see anything good coming out of that crime anyway- now or in the future- its all bad)!

Secondly, there are naturally aspects in which Christianity in the U.S. has influenced/been influenced by American culture, aspects which are a turn-off to me (and, no doubt, others) and which, I suspect, work against the Faith. Case in point: how the consumerist mentality has affected evangelism, particularly in American Protestant Evangelicalism where they use marketing techniques to "sell" the gospel and many of their evangelists remind one of nothing so much as encyclopaedia salesmen. But then, there are probably aspects in which British/Australian culture has influenced the way I approach my faith of which I am largely unconscious, and which someone from a different culture would see instantly and berate me for. Each culture has its own perennial vices and virtues.

Actually, I recall G.K. Chesterton once remarked that "America is a nation with the soul of a Church." I find this insight very illuminating when one looks at the bizarre shapes taken by both religion and politics (not to mention the interplay between them, which is even more arresting) in that strange land across the Atlantic.

I haven't seen 'Jesus Camp', although I have heard of it. Is it worth seeing? Maybe I should see it.---------------------------Depends on your point of view. It's basically a documentary about evangelicals in the US, not so much about consumerism but mostly revolving around a Bible camp and brushing issues such as indoctrination, abortion, and the "chipping away of the seperation between church and state" which is basically what I was trying to bring up. It's meant to be even handed enough, although I have no idea if this is a good representation of evangelicals or not. They do however share similair beliefs as one or two I might know, even if I never caught them making some bad attempt to talk tongues or get all weepy, they did have a low opinion of secular education and an obession over the Bible which they kept in those quaint little leather casings.--------------------------------

A couple of things. Obviously I don't support abortion doctors getting shot. I was grieved when I read about George Tiller. I was also gratified (and, to be perfectly honest, relieved) to see all the major pro-life organisations denouncing the act almost as soon as it happened. The man who did that not only committed murder but, by doing so, violated his own principles. You cannot do evil that good may come of it. That is a moral norm that NEVER changes, no matter the circumstances (I can't see anything good coming out of that crime anyway- now or in the future- its all bad)!---------------------------------I expected as much but it is satisfying to hear that you agree nontheless.

GAB, but the whole problem here is that in our judgements of the Papal states we are acting on what we think now, given our society the Church ought to be. As such, our judgements are culturally conditioned.

Kiran, see what I said before. It is still possible to make an accurate judgement on matters deriving from moral norms or deriving from the nature of the thing itself. I submit that the existence of the Papal States and the consequent necessity for the Pope to act as a politician is inconsistent with the papacy in its essence (its quiddity, if you will). It is a corruption of what the office IS. Similarly, we would call out the dodginess inherent therein if the Prime Minister was also selected to be Governor-General, if the U.S. President was also Head of the U.N. or if the Chief Rabbi of the Synagogue in Jerusalem was at the same time President of Israel.

There are of course cultural realities which change over time, and it is difficult to put ourselves in the mindset of our forebears. It is easy to make unjustified assumptions about their motives and actions. But the papacy is still the same thing it was in the first century, in the eighth, the fourteenth and the twenty-first. There must be a continuity in the nature of the office, otherwise it would cease to be itself and we would call it something different. And as long as there is such continuity in the nature of the office, we can make judgements based on that nature as to the legitimacy or advisedness of the actions done in its exercise.

You haven't proved that there is such an inconsistency. At best, you feel that there is an inconsistency. The papal states are argued as necessary for the exercise of the ordinary papal office, given the state of Europe at the time.

Also, your parallel with Prime Minister and governor-general is just not true. The Pope as head of the state would have had about as much to say about the actual running of the state, as an 18th century English monarch.

Also, the reason why I said such judgements are arbitrary is that, unless one has a great deal of context, historical and otherwise, one is bound to get even the basic facts of the case wrong. It is rather like the people who berate the Catholic Church for failing to accept evolution, and then find out that actually, Catholics had no trouble with it at all. Or the people who criticize the Church for Darwin's going to jail, when he didn't. Now, the way in which Papal power worked was quite a complex facet of medieval life. In many ways, it was a positive thing for the people ruled. Arguably, it was also necessary for the Church's own survival. It is one thing to say that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church, but this does not mean that the concrete historical circumstances weren't the way the Church was guarded against the gates of hell.

I'm at a loss to see how an historical context can provide mitigating circumstances. A bishop is not a politician. When one man is both, it seems to me inevitable that the two roles will interfere with each other. Is at least that statement safe ground or do I have to demonstrate that?

About Me

I am not my job. I am not my upbringing. I am not the things I know or the skills I have. I am a sinner being saved by grace, a self marooned in the cosmos. There are clear signposts. The path is perilous. Fortunately, I am not the first to come this way.